LAWS(NCD)-2007-1-73

INDRADO SAW Vs. R P PATNAYAK

Decided On January 15, 2007
Indrado Saw Appellant
V/S
R P Patnayak Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was the complainant. He alleged that he along with his minor son was travelling from Chandrapura to Bokaro by Ranchi bound Train No. 229 Up on 30.10.2002 having ticket Nos. 282561 and 55552. On reaching train at Bokaro, he along with his son got down and T.C. Incharge along with others asked them to show the tickets. T.C. Incharge told that the tickets were false and both the petitioner and his son were taken to R.P.F. Enquiry on platform No.1. They were charged Rs. 130 for performing journey by Train No. 436. It was further alleged that the petitioner went back to Chandrapura and contacted the Commercial Supervisor on duty and was granted certificate regarding the tickets purchased by him for performance of journey from Chandrapura to Bokaro. Claiming certain reliefs, complaint was filed which was contested by the opposite party. It was alleged in the written version that the complainant and his son were travelling from Muri to Bokaro Steel City by 436 Passenger on 30.10.2002 and were detected by Pradip Kumar Jha, T.C. on duty and on being asked to produce tickets, the complainant failed to do so. When the complainant refused to pay the fare and penalty as per Railways' Rules they were handed over to R.P.F. and amount of Rs.130 was subsequently paid by them for which receipt was issued to the complainant. It was denied that the complainant and his son were travelling by 229 Up Passenger as alleged. Complaint was dismissed by the District Forum by the order dated 27.7.2005. Appeal against District Forum's order was also dismissed by the State Commission by the order under challenge dated 25.11.2005.

(2.) SUBMISSION advanced by the complainant is that he was charged Rs. 4 extra towards fare and amount of Rs. 130 realized from him was not deposited with the Railways. To be only noted that excess payment of Rs. 4 and non -deposit of Rs. 130 realised from the complainant by the Ticket Collector were not in issue before any of the two Fora below as is manifest from the said order dated 27.7.2005 and 25.11.2005. Therefore, those cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of C.P. Act. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed.